REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._____ OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2614 of 2009)

State of Maharashtra & Ors.  ..Appellant(s)

Versus  

Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr...Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The facts of each case, which come up to this Court  

and especially those which are heard at length as  

appeals,  have  a  message  to  convey.  The  message  

conveyed in this case is extremely shocking and it  

shocks the conscience of this Court about the manner  

1

in which the Constitutional functionaries behaved in  

the State of Maharashtra.

3. A writ petition was filed before Bombay High Court  

by Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan – the first  

respondent in this appeal. He described himself as  

an agriculturist by profession. The allegation in  

the  writ  petition  is  of  illegal  money  lending  

against  the  second  respondent  to  the  extent  of  

charging 10% interest per month on the money lent.

4. In view of such exorbitant interest being charged  

and the illegalities which are alleged be committed  

in  the recovery  of such  loan, certain  complaints  

were filed against the second respondent and in the  

writ  petition  it  is  stated  that  as  many  as  34  

complaints  were  registered  against  the  second  

respondent till 28.6.2006.

5. It was also averred in the writ petition that nearly  

300  farmers  have  committed  suicide  in  Vidarbha  

region  of Maharashtra  as victims  of such  illegal  

money lending business and the torture perpetrated  

in the recovery of such money. A complaint has been  

2

made that the farmers do not get the benefit of  

various packages announced by the Government and the  

State machinery is ruthless against the farmers. The  

cause of action for filing the writ petition is the  

order  of  Collector  in  the  District  of  Buldhana  

(hereinafter “Collector”) directing not to register  

any crime against Mr. Gokulchand Sananda, the second  

respondent herein, without obtaining  clearance from  

the District Anti Money Lending Committee and also  

without  obtaining legal  opinion of   the  District  

Government Pleader. It appears that the said order  

was  passed  by  the  Collector  in  view  of  the  

instructions given to him by the then Chief Minister  

of Maharashtra. It has been alleged in the petition  

that there are several complaints and the number of  

such complaints is about 50 against Sananda and his  

family  members who  are carrying  on money  lending  

business and the cases cannot be registered against  

them in view of the instructions given by the then  

Chief Minister.

6. In  order  to  understand  the  seriousness  of  the  

situation, it will be appropriate in the fitness of  

things, to set out the order dated 5.6.2006 of the  

3

Collector, Buldhana to the District Superintendent  

of Police, Buldhana:

“To District Superintendent of Police Buldhana

Sub: Regarding  complaints  against  illegal  money  lending  against  MLA  Dilipkumar  Sananda and his family members.

Ref: instructions  given  by  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister in meeting dated 1.6.2006.

On the above mentioned subject, detailed  discussion  took  place  at  the  residence  of  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister  on  1.6.2006.  In  the  said  meeting,  MLA  Dilipkumar  Sananda  complained that deliberately by raising false  allegations,  against  his  family  members,  complaints regarding illegal money lending are  being  filed  and  without  scrutinizing  truthfulness of the said complaints, offences  are  being  registered.  In  respect  of  said  grievance,  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister  has  taken  serious note and given order that ‘if any such  complaint is received then before registration  of offence against MLA Dilipkumar Sananda and  his family members, said matter/complaint be  placed for decision before District Anti-Money  Lending  Committee  and  said  Committee  should  obtain  legal  opinion  of  District  Government  Pleader and then only take decision on the  same  and  take  appropriate  legal  action  accordingly’.

You  are  informed  that  as  per  the  instructions  of  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister,  matters against Sananda family be handled as  per the provisions of Money Lending Prevention  Act.”

7. It  may  be  noticed  that  prior  to  the  aforesaid  

discussion which the Collector had at the residence  

of the Chief Minister on 1.6.2006 in which meeting  

4

Mr.  Dilipkumar  Sananda,  local  MLA  was  present,  

something happened in the Police Station, Khamgaon  

City,  District  Buldhana  on  31.5.2006.  The  said  

station diary shows that Mr. Padwal, P.S. to the  

Chief  Minister  telephoned  twice  to  enquire  about  

“the information regarding the offence” registered  

against Sananda and the Section under which the case  

has  been  registered.  The  second  phone  call  as  

recorded  in  Station  Diary  shows  that  Mr.  Padwal  

directed  that  no  action  should  be  taken  as  

instructed  by  the  Chief  Minster  and  no  offence  

should be registered. The text of the station diary  

dated 31.5.2006 is set out:

“Station Diary Police  Station  Khamgaon  City,  District  Buldhana,  dated 31.5.2006

Station  Diary  Entry  No.

Time Summary  of  the  Entry

Particulars of Entry

26 13.15  hrs.

Phone  from  PS  to  Hon.  CM

At this time, Mr. Padwal, PS  to  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister,  MS dialed and enquired about  the  information  regarding  offence  registered  against  Sananda;  we  informed  that  offence  is  registered  at  12.15 hrs.

5

27 13.25  hrs.

Phone  from  PS  to  Hon.  CM

At  this  time,  Mr.  Padwal  enquired about facts of the  offence registered, sections  applied;  then  we  informed  them about sections applied  to  the  said  registered  offence, then he told that  henceforth  no  action  be  taken  as  instructed  by  Hon’ble CM and further said  that again no other offences  be registered.

Sd/- Police Inspector

Khamgaon City Police Station

8. On  the writ  petition being  filed challenging  the  

aforesaid  two  communications,  namely,  the  

communication made by the P.S. to the Chief Minister  

vide the Station diary entry which is set out above  

and the order of Collector on the direction of the  

Chief  Minister,  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  

judgment allowed the writ petition. The High Court,  

inter alia, held that the directions of the Chief  

Minister in the telephonic message was proved by the  

communication of the Collector dated 5.6.2006 and  

the  High  Court  held  that  such  telephonic  

communication was made at the behest of Gokulchand  

Sananda,  the  second  respondent  herein.  The  High  

Court after examining the provisions of the Bombay  

6

Money Lenders Act and also the materials on record  

held  that  the  letter  dated  5.6.2006  and  the  

telephonic  message  recorded  in  the  Station  diary  

entry exhibit gross abuse of power by the concerned  

authority and struck down both the communications.

9. The  High  Court,  however,  recorded  that  on  the  

complaint filed by the writ petitioner – the first  

respondent  herein,  a  chargesheet  was  filed  for  

offences under Sections 341, 342, 363, 392, 504 read  

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 32B  

of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. The criminal  

case is pending. The High Court also observed that  

they are not aware how many instances of illegal  

money lending do exist. The High Court expressed a  

hope that power of the Executive will not be abused  

in the manner in which it has been done in this  

case. The High Court, quashed the Collector’s order  

and  allowed  the  writ  petition  awarding  costs  of  

Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the State Government.

10. However, the State of Maharashtra did not accept the  

judgment of the High Court and challenged the same  

before this Court by filing a special leave petition  

out of which the present appeal arises.

7

11. From the affidavit which was filed by the Collector  

before  the  High   Court,  it  appears  that  the  

Collector has admitted that in Vidarbha region in  

Buldhana District the farmers committed suicide for  

various reasons and especially for the loan burden  

coupled with the fact that there was irregular rain  

fall.

12. The  Collector  admitted  in  paragraph  (3)  of  the  

affidavit that on the complaint of Sananda before  

the  Chief  Minister  about  cases  being  registered  

against  him  and  his  family  members  without  

investigation,  the  Chief  Minister  called  the  

Collector at Mumbai and gave the instructions quoted  

above  and  thereupon  the  Collector  conveyed  the  

message of the Chief Minister to the Superintendent  

of Police, Buldhana.  However, the Collector took a  

stand that by doing so he has not committed any  

illegality.  

13. In the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police,  

Buldhana before the High Court, he admits that there  

are five cases already registered against the family  

8

members of Sananda under the Bombay Money Lenders  

Act and he has given details of those cases in his  

affidavit. He also submitted that on 31.5.2006 an  

offence  came to  be registered  at police  station,  

Khamgaon (T) on the complaint made by Shri Rajesh  

Shankar Kawadkar under Sections 341, 366, 392 read  

with Section 34 IPC and under Section 32(b) and 33  

of the Bombay Money Lenders Act.  He also admits to  

have received instructions from the Collector by the  

Collector’s  order  dated  5.6.2006  about  the  

Collector’s meeting with the then Chief Minister of  

the Maharashtra and also about the manner in which  

the police has to deal with the complaints against  

Dilip  Kumar  Sananda  and  his  family  members.   He  

further  averred  in  his  affidavit  that  by  letter  

dated 9.6.2006 the Superintendent of Police conveyed  

that as per Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code  

cognizable complaints are to be registered without  

undue delay.  However, on receipt of the said letter  

the  Collector  sent  his  letter  dated  14.6.2006  

stating therein that under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C.  

the  State  Government  can  direct  a  senior  police  

officer to take cognizance of the offence also.  

9

14. In the course of hearing of this case, this Court by  

an  order  dated  11th February  2010  directed  the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  to  file  an  

affidavit on the following points:

“1. The  number  of  cases  involving  complaints against respondent No.2 and/or  his family members.

2. The number of cases in which FIR have  been  registered  against  respondent  No.2  and/or his family members.

3. The   number   of   cases   in   which  instructions   like   the   one contained  in  letter  dated  05.06.2006  of  District  Collector,  Buldhana  were  or  have  been  given by Hon'ble the Chief Minister    or  any other functionary or authority of the  State Government.”

15. Pursuant thereto an additional affidavit was filed  

by one Ambadas, Assistant Police Inspector, posted  

to  P.S.  Khamgaon  Gramin,  District  Buldhana,  

Maharashtra to the effect that 34 complaints were  

received in different police stations in Buldhana  

District against the members of Sananda family. In  

the  affidavit  it  was  also  stated  that  in  seven  

complaints chargesheets have been filed and the same  

are  pending  before  different  Courts  below.  In  

respect of other complaints the complainants have  

10

either  settled  their  disputes  or  have  withdrawn  

their  complaints.  It  was  also  stated  that  not  a  

single  person  including  any  member  of  the  

complainant’s family has committed suicide in view  

of  dispute over  money lending  by Sananda  family.  

This averment was, however, not necessary in terms  

of the order dated 11.2.10.  

16. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  first  

respondent raised a contention that the so called  

District  Anti-money  Lending  Committee  is  not  

statutory. This Court has looked into the resolution  

dated 19th October 2005 which purports to constitute  

the said committee and this Court finds that the  

said committee has not been constituted in exercise  

of  any  statutory  power  and  the  said  committee  

consists of the following persons:

“1. District Collector of the concerned District - President

2. District Superintendent of Police – Member

3. District Registrar, Cooperative  Society - Member Secretary.”

17. This Court, therefore, finds that the contention of  

the  learned  counsel  for  the  first  respondent  is  

11

correct  and  so  far  as  the  said  committee  is  

concerned it is not a statutory body.

18. Since, the learned counsel for the first respondent  

was arguing on the propriety of directions given by  

the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra and also on  

the propriety of Chief Minister’s Personal Secretary  

making  telephone calls  to the  police station  and  

giving instructions as to how complaints should be  

registered  against  the  family  of  the  second  

respondent, this Court thought that the then Chief  

Minister  of Maharashtra,  who was  initially not  a  

party to this proceeding, should be impleaded and be  

given a chance to make his representation before the  

Court. Therefore, this Court by an order dated 31st  

March 2010, gave notice to the then Chief Minister  

of State of Maharashtra, presently Union Minister,  

Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India  

and directed service of the entire paper book of  

Special Leave Petition on him in order to enable him  

to file an affidavit in the context of the letter  

dated 5th June 2006 sent by the Collector to the  

District Superintendent of the Police, Buldhana.

12

19. Pursuant to the said notice an affidavit was filed  

by Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh, the then Chief Minister  

of Maharashtra. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit  

the content of the letter of the Collector dated  

5.6.06 was not denied. Nor was it denied that on  

31.5.06, his Private Secretary made two telephone  

calls  to  the  concerned  Police  Station  enquiring  

about cases registered against Sananda. However, in  

the said affidavit Mr. Deshmukh stated that he never  

interfered  with  any  pending  investigation  against  

the family of Sananda and he further stated that  

investigation was conducted and the chargesheet was  

filed.  

20. Considering  the  entire  matter  in  its  proper  

perspective, this Court is of the view that the way  

interference was caused first from the office of the  

Chief  Minister  by  his  Private  Secretary  by  two  

telephone calls on 31.5.2006 and the manner in which  

District  Collector  was  summoned  by  the  Chief  

Minister  on  the  very  next  day  i.e.  1.6.2006  for  

giving  instructions  to  specially  treat  any  

complaints  filed  against  M.L.A.  Mr.  Dilip  Kumar  

13

Sananda and his family has no precedent either in  

law or in public administration.  

21. The  legal  position  is  well  settled  that  on  

information being lodged with the police and if the  

said  information  discloses  the  commission  of  a  

cognizable offence, the police shall record the same  

in accordance with the provisions contained under  

Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Police  

Officer’s  power  to  investigate  in  case  of  a  

cognizable offence without order of the Magistrate  

is statutorily recognised under Section 156 of Code.  

Thus  the  police  officer  in  charge  of  a  police  

station,  on the  basis of  information received  or  

otherwise, can start investigation if he has reasons  

to suspect the commission of any cognizable offence.  

22. This  is  subject  to  the  provisos  (a)  and  (b)  to  

Section 157 of the Code which leaves discretion with  

the police officer-in-charge of police station to  

consider  if  the  information  is  not  of  a  serious  

nature,  he  may  depute  a  subordinate  officer  to  

investigate  and if  it appears  to the  officer-in-

14

charge that there does not exist sufficient ground,  

he shall not investigate.  

23. This legal framework is a very vital component of  

the  Rule  of  Law  in  order  to  ensure  prompt  

investigation in cognizable cases and to maintain  

law and order.  

24. Law does not accord any special treatment to any  

person in respect of any complaint having been filed  

against him when it discloses the commission of any  

cognizable  offence. In  the context  of this  clear  

legal position which, as noted above, is a vital  

component of a Rule of Law, the direction of the  

then Chief Minister to give a special treatment to  

Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, M.L.A and his family about  

registering  of  complaint  filed  against  them  is  

totally unwarranted in law. Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh as  

the  Chief  Minister  of  State  of  Maharashtra  is  

expected  to  know  that  the  farmers  of  the  State  

specially  those in  the Vidarbha  region are  going  

through a great deal of suffering and hardship in  

the hands of money lenders.  

15

25. It is not in dispute that members of the family of  

Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda, a Member of Legislative  

Assembly, are engaged in money lending business and  

various  complaints  have  been  lodged  against  the  

members of such family.

26. From the affidavit filed by Shri Ambadas it is clear  

that  34  cases  were  filed  against  that  family  in  

respect of allegation of money lending.  

27. From the communication of the Collector containing  

the  instructions of  the then  Chief Minister,  Mr.  

Vilasrao  Deshmukh,  it  is  clear  that  the  Chief  

Minister was aware of various complaints being filed  

against  the  said  family.  Even  then  he  passed  an  

order for a special treatment in favour of the said  

family which is unknown to law. This was obviously  

done to protect the Sananda family from the normal  

legal process and a special procedure was directed  

to be adopted in respect of criminal complaint filed  

against  them. In  other words,  the Chief  Minister  

wanted to give the members of the said family a  

special protection which is not available to other  

similarly  placed  persons.  It  is  clear  from  the  

16

Collector’s  order  dated  5.6.2006  where  the  Chief  

Minister’s instructions were quoted that the Chief  

Minister  was  acting  solely  on  political  

consideration to screen the family of M.L.A from the  

normal process of law.

28. As Judges of this Court, it is our paramount duty to  

maintain  the  Rule  of  Law  and  the  Constitutional  

norms of equal protection.  

29. We cannot shut our eyes to the stark realities. From  

the  National  Crime  Records  Bureau  (NCRB),  it  is  

clear  that  close  to  two  lakh  farmers  committed  

suicide in India between 1997 and 2008. This is the  

largest sustained wave of suicides ever recorded in  

human history. Two thirds of the two lakh suicides  

took place in five states and those five states are  

Maharashtra,  Andhra  Pradesh,  Karnataka,  Madhya  

Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Even though Maharashtra is  

one of the richest state in the country and in its  

capital Mumbai twenty five thousand of India’s one  

lakh dollar millionaires reside, the Vidarbha region  

of Maharashtra, in which is situated Buldhana, is  

today  the  worst  place  in  the  whole  country  for  

17

farmers. Professor K. Nagraj of the Madras Institute  

of Development Studies who carried on a research in  

this area has categorized that Maharashtra could be  

called the graveyard of farmers.

30. The position is so pathetic in Vidarbha region that  

families are holding funerals and weddings at the  

same time and some time on the same day. In a moving  

show of solidarity poor villagers are accumulating  

their  money  and  labour  to  conduct  marriages  and  

funerals of their poor neighbours. (See the report  

in Hindu dated 22nd May 2006).

31. This being the ground reality, as the Chief Minister  

of the State and as holding a position of great  

responsibility as a high constitutional functionary,  

Mr.  Vilasrao  Deshmukh  certainly  acted  beyond  all  

legal norms by giving the impugned directions to the  

Collector to protect members of a particular family  

who are dealing in money lending business from the  

normal  process of  law. This  amounts to  bestowing  

special favour to some chosen few at the cost of the  

vast number of poor people who as farmers have taken  

loans and who have come to the authorities of law  

18

and  order  to  register  their  complaints  against  

torture  and atrocities  by the  money lenders.  The  

instructions of the Chief Minister will certainly  

impede their access to legal redress and bring about  

a failure of the due process.

32. The  aforesaid  action  of  the  Chief  Minister  is  

completely  contrary  to  and  inconsistent  with  the  

constitutional  promise  of  equality  and  also  the  

preambular resolve of social and economic justice.  

As a Chief Minister of the State Mr. Deshmukh has  

taken  a  solemn  of  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  

Constitution but the directions which he gave are  

wholly  unconstitutional  and  seek  to  subvert  the  

constitutional norms of equality and social justice.  

33. The  argument  that  some  of  the  cases  in  which  

complaints were filed against the family of Sananda,  

were investigated and chargesheets were filed, is a  

poor consolation and does not justify the issuing of  

the  wholly  unauthorised  and  unconstitutional  

instructions to the Collector. It is not known to us  

in  how many  cases investigation  has been  totally  

scuttled in view of the impugned directions. Records  

disclosed in this case show that out of 74 cases  

19

only in seven cases chargesheets were filed and the  

rest  of  the  cases  were  either  compromised  or  

withdrawn.  How  can  poor  farmers  sustain  their  

complaint in the face of such directions and how can  

the  subordinate  police  officers  carry  on  

investigation  ignoring  such  instructions  of  the  

Chief Minister? Therefore, the instructions of the  

Chief Minister have completely subverted the Rule of  

Law.  

34. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for  

Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh relied on a decision of this  

Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of  Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2008 (14) SCC 337.  

35. In Lalita Kumari (supra), a Bench of this Court did  not lay down any law. The Bench merely noted that  

there  is a  divergence of  views between  different  

Benches  of  this  court  on  the  issue  whether  upon  

receipt  of  information  disclosing  a  cognizable  

offence, it is imperative for the police officer to  

register a case or discretion still lies with him to  

make  some  kind  of  a  preliminary  enquiry  before  

registering  the same.  The Bench  having noted  the  

20

divergence  of  views  on  the  aforesaid  question  

referred the matter to a larger Bench.

36. We fail to appreciate the relevance of the aforesaid  

decision  to the  disputes involved  in the  present  

case.

37. In  Lalita Kumari (supra), there was no instruction  by any Chief Minister or any executive authority to  

give a special treatment to any group of persons in  

the matter of registration of criminal cases against  

them.  Therefore,  the  opinion  in  Lalita  Kumari  (supra) does not in any way justify the instruction  

given by Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh.

38. This Court is extremely anguished to see that such  

an instruction could come from the Chief Minister of  

a State which is governed under a Constitution which  

resolves  to  constitute  India  into  a  socialist,  

secular,  democratic  republic.  Chief  Minister’s  

instructions are so incongruous and anachronistic,  

being in defiance of all logic and reason, that our  

conscience is deeply disturbed. We condemn the same  

in no uncertain terms.  

21

39. We affirm the order of the High Court and direct  

that the instruction of the Chief Minister to the  

Collector dated 5.6.06 has no warrant in law and is  

unconstitutional  and  is  quashed.  We  dismiss  this  

appeal  with  costs  of  Rs.10,00,000/-  (Rupees  Ten  

Lakhs) to be paid by the appellant in favour of the  

Maharashtra  State  Legal  Services  Authority.  This  

fund shall be earmarked by the Authority to help the  

cases of poor farmers.  Such costs should be paid  

within a period of six weeks from date.    

.....................J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

.....................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi   December 14, 2010

22

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2614 of 2009)

State of Maharashtra and others  ……..Appellants

Versus

Sarabgdharsingh Shivdassing Chavan  …….Respondents and another

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. I have gone through the judgment prepared by my esteemed brother  

Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.  I agree with him that the appeal deserves to  

be dismissed with costs but would like to separately record my views on the  

crucial issue of ministerial interference in the functioning of the authorities  

entrusted with the task of enforcing the laws enacted by the legislature.  

2. The Constituent Assembly which comprised of eminent people drawn  

from different walks of life debated for more than two years, examined the  

constitutions  of  several  countries  and prepared the  document,  which  was  

adopted as "the Constitution of India".  The Preamble to the Constitution, as  

it stands after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, reads  

thus:

"We,  the  people  of  India,  having  solemnly  resolved  to  constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic  Republic and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity and to promote among  them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the  unity and integrity of the Nation."

3. Though  each  of  XXII  Parts  of  the  Constitution  has  its  own  

significance, the common man is by and large concerned with Parts III, IV  

and IV-A, the last having been added by the Forty-second Amendment Act,  

1976.   Part-III  of the Constitution enumerates various fundamental  rights  

guaranteed to the citizens and even non-citizens.  The provisions of Part-IV  

contain directive principles of State policy which are fundamental for the  

24

governance of the country. The State has been obligated to enact laws for  

improving  the  lot  of  the  weaker  sections  of  the  society  and  the  rural  

population so that the goals of social justice and equality can be achieved.  

4. By  incorporating  Part  IVA in  the  Constitution,  the  Parliament  has  

emphasized what is obvious, that is, every citizen must do his duty towards  

the nation as well as the fellow citizens because unless every one does his  

duty, it is not possible to achieve the goals of equality and justice enshrined  

in the Preamble.   Article  51A enjoins upon every citizen to abide by the  

Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the  

National Anthem; to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our  

national struggle for freedom; to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity  

and  integrity  of  India;  to  promote  harmony  and  the  spirit  of  common  

brotherhood amongst all the people irrespective of religion, language, region  

etc. and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; to value  

and  preserve  the  rich  heritage  of  our  composite  culture;  to  protect  and  

improve the natural  environment  including forests,  lakes,  rivers  and wild  

life, and to have compassion for living creatures; to develop the scientific  

temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; to safeguard public  

property  and  to  abjure  violence;  and  to  strive  towards  excellence  in  all  

25

spheres of individual  and collective activity  so that  the nation constantly  

rises  to  higher  levels  of  endeavour  and  achievement.  What  has  been  

incorporated in the form of Part IV-A was implicit in the Preamble, Part III  

and Part-IV of the Constitution because fundamental rights of the citizens  

can become meaningful only if the State and citizens do their duty to bring  

about real equality amongst the people belonging to different segments of  

the Society.

5. Part IV-A of the Constitution was enacted with a fond hope that every  

citizen will honestly play his role in building of a homogeneous society in  

which every Indian will be able to live with dignity without having to bother  

about the basics like food, clothing, shelter, education, medical aid and the  

nation will constantly march forward and will take its place of pride in the  

comity of nations.  However, what has happened in last few decades has  

given rise to serious apprehensions whether we will be able to achieve the  

objectives which were in the mind of the makers of the Constitution.  The  

gap between 'haves' and 'haves not' of the society which existed even in pre-

independent  India  has  widened to  such an  extent  that  it  may  take many  

decades before even a token equality is restored.  A small fraction of the  

population has evolved a new value system which is totally incompatible  

26

with  the  values  and  ideals  cherished  by  the  Indian  society  for  centuries  

together. They believe in achieving their goals without regard to purity of  

the means.     

6. Under the Constitution, the executive power of the State vests in the  

Governor and is required to be exercised by him either directly or through  

officers  subordinate  to  him in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  [Article  

154(1)].  Article 163 mandates that there shall be Council of Ministers with  

the Chief Minister as the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise  

of  his  functions,  except  in  so  far  as  he  is  by  or  under  the  Constitution  

required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.  Article  

164 lays down that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor  

and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of  

the Chief Minister, and the Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of  

the Governor.  Article 164(3) lays down that the Governor shall before a  

Minister  enters upon his office, administer to him the oath of office and  

secrecy according to the form set  out in the Third Schedule,  in terms of  

which, the Minister is required to take oath that he shall discharge his duties  

in  accordance  with  the  Constitution  and the  law without  fear  or  favour,  

affection  or  ill  will.   However,  the  cases  involving  pervasive  misuse  of  

public office for private gains, which have come to light in last few decades  

27

tend to shake the peoples’ confidence and one is constrained to think that  

India has freed itself from British colonialism only to come in the grip of a  

new  class,  which  tries  to  rule  on  the  same  colonial  principles.   Some  

members of the political class who are entrusted with greater responsibilities  

and who take oath to do their duties in accordance with the Constitution and  

the law without fear or favour, affection or ill will, have by their acts and  

omissions demonstrated that they have no respect for system based on rule  

of law.   

7. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in  C.S. Rowjee v. State of  

Andhra Pradesh (1964) 6 SCR 330 is an illustration of the misuse of public  

office by the Chief Minister for political gain.  The schemes framed by the  

Government of Andhra Pradesh under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles  

Act, 1939 for nationalization of motor transport in certain areas of Kurnool  

District of Andhra Pradesh were challenged by filing writ petitions under  

Article 226 of the Constitution.  The High Court repelled the challenge to  

the validity of the schemes and also negatived the argument that the same  

were vitiated due to mala fides of the then Chief Minister of the State.  This  

Court allowed the appeals and quashed the scheme and declared that the  

schemes are invalid and cannot be enforced.  While examining the issue of  

mala fide exercise of power, the Constitution Bench stuck a note of caution  

28

by observing that allegations of malafides and of improper motives on the  

part  of  those  in power are  frequently  made and some times  without  any  

foundation  and,  therefore,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Court  to  scrutinize  those  

allegations with care so as to avoid being in any manner influenced by them  

if they are not well founded.  The Court then noted that the scheme was  

originally  framed  by  the  Corporation  on  the  recommendations  of  

Anantharamakrishnan  Committee,  but  was  modified  at  the  asking  of  the  

Chief  Minister  so  that  his  opponents  may  be  prejudicially  affected  and  

proceeded to observe:

“The  first  matter  which  stands  out  prominently  in  this  connection is the element of time and the sequence of dates. We  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  Corporation  had as  late  as  March 1962 considered the entire subject and had accepted the  recommendation of the Anantharamakrishnan Committee as to  the order in which the transport in the several districts should be  nationalised  and  had  set  these  out  in  their  Administration  Report  for  the  three  year  period  1958  to  1961.  It  must,  therefore,  be  taken  that  every  factor  which  the  Anantharamakrishnan Committee had considered relevant and  material  for  determining  the  order  of  the  districts  had  been  independently investigated, examined and concurred in, before  those  recommendations  were  approved.  It  means  that  up  to  March-April 1962 a consideration of all the relevant factors had  led the Corporation to a conclusion identical with that of the  Anantharamakrishnan Committee. The next thing that happened  was a conference of the Corporation and its officials with the  Chief  Minister  on  April  19,  1962.  The  proceedings  of  the  conference are not on the record nor is there any evidence as to  whether  any  record  was  made  of  what  happened  at  the  conference.  But we have the statement of the Chief Minister  

29

made on the floor of the State Assembly in which he gave an  account of what transpired between him and the Corporation  and  its  officials.  We  have  already  extracted  the  relevant  portions  of  that  speech  from  which  the  following  points  emerge: (1) that the Chief Minister claimed a right to lay down  rules of policy for the guidance of the Corporation and in fact,  the  learned Advocate-General  submitted to  us that  under  the  Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Government had a  right to give directions as to policy to the Corporation; (2) that  the  policy direction  that  he gave  related to  and included the  order  in  which  the  districts  should  be  taken  up  for  nationalisation;  and  (3)  that  applying  the  criteria  that  the  districts  to  be  nationalised  should  be  contiguous  to  those  in  which nationalised services already existed, Kurnool answered  this test better than Chittoor and he applying the tests he laid  down  therefore  suggested  that  instead  of  Chittoor,  Kurnool  should be taken up next. One matter that emerges from this is  that  it  was as  a result  of  policy decision  taken by the  Chief  Minister  and  the  direction  given  to  the  Corporation  that  Kurnool was taken up for nationalisation next after Guntur. It is  also to be noticed that if the direction by the Chief Minister,  was a policy decision, the Corporation was under the law bound  to  give  effect  to  (vide  Section  34  of  the  Road  Transport  Corporation Act,  1950).  We are not  here concerned with the  question whether a policy decision contemplated by Section 34  of the Road Transport Act could relate to a matter which under  Section 68-C of the Act is left to the unfettered discretion and  judgment  of  the  Corporation,  where  that  is  the  State  undertaking, or again whether or not the policy decision has to  be  by  a  formal  Government  Order  in  writing  for  what  is  relevant  is  whether  the  materials  placed  before  the  Court  establish that the Corporation gave effect  to it  as a direction  which they were expected to and did obey. If the Chief Minister  was impelled by motives of personal ill-will against the Road  Transport Operators in the western part of Kurnool and he gave  the  direction  to  the  Corporation  to  change  the  order  of  the  districts  as  originally  planned  by  them  and  instead  take  up  Kurnool  first  in  order  to  prejudicially  affect  his  political  opponents, and the Corporation carried out his directions it does  not  need  much  argument  to  show that  the  resultant  scheme  

30

framed by the Corporation would also be vitiated by mala fides  notwithstanding  the  interposition  of  the  semi-autonomous  Corporation.

……  If  in  these  circumstances  the  appellants  allege  that  whatever  views  the  Corporation  entertained  they  were  compelled to or gave effect to the wishes of the Chief Minister,  it could not be said that the same is an unreasonable inference  from facts. It is also somewhat remarkable that within a little  over two weeks from this conference by its resolution of May 4,  1962,  the  Corporation  dropped  Nellore  altogether,  a  district  which was contiguous to Guntur and proceeded to take up the  nationalisation of the routes of the western part of the Kurnool  district and were able to find reasons for taking the step. It is  also worthy of note that in the resolution of 4th May, 1962, of  the  Corporation  only  one  reason  was  given  for  preferring  Kurnool to Nellore, namely, the existence of a depot at Kurnool  because  the  other  reason  given,  namely,  that  Kurnool  was  contiguous to an area of nationalised transport equally applied  to Nellore and, in fact, this was one of the criteria on the basis  of  which  the  Anantharamakrishnan  Committee  itself  decided  the order of priority among the districts. ……

…… What the Court is concerned with and what is relevant to  the enquiry in the appeals is not whether theoretically or on a  consideration of the arguments for and against, now advanced  the  choice  of  Kurnool  as  the  next  district  selected  for  nationalisation of transport was wise or improper, but a totally  different question whether this choice of Kurnool was made by  the Corporation as required by Section 68-C or, whether this  choice vas in fact and in substance, made by the Chief Minister,  and  implemented  by  him  by  utilising  the  machinery  of  the  Corporation  as  alleged  by  the  appellants.  On  the  evidence  placed in the case we are satisfied that it was as a result of the  conference of April 19, 1962, and in order to give effect to the  wishes of the Chief Minister expressed there, that the schemes  now impugned were formulated by the Corporation.”

(emphasis supplied)

31

In  Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar (1984) 2 SCC 41, this Court  

examined the question whether the Chief Minister of the State could direct  

extension of the term of the committee of management of Vaishali District  

Central Cooperative Bank, Hazipur (for short, `the Bank’).  The Bank was  

created for the new district, which came into existence with the bifurcation  

of the existing district.  In exercise of the power  conferred upon him by  

Bye-law  29,  the  Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies,  Bihar  nominated  a  

committee of management of 17 members including the appellant to be the  

first Board of Directors for a period of six months i.e., up to December 31,  

1981  or  till  further  orders,  whichever  was  earlier.   The  committee  of  

management was specifically directed to get the elections of the Board of  

Directors held in accordance with the law within six months.  The appellant,  

who was a political person directly approached the then Chief Minister of  

the State and got the term of the first Board of Directors extended from time  

to time resulting in postponement of  the election of the new board.   On  

29.10.1981, the then Chief Minister made an endorsement to the Minister  

(Cooperation) with a direction that the Registrar should extend the period of  

the committee of management for the time being.  The Registrar complied  

with  the  directive  of  the  Chief  Minister,  but  ordained  the  committee  of  

32

management  to  call  the  general  meeting  and  get  the  Board  of  Directors  

elected within the extended term.  In April 1982, the appellant again got the  

term extended through the intervention of the Chief Minister.  On 13.4.1983,  

the  appellant  addressed another  communication  to  the Chief  Minister  for  

extension of the term of the nominated Board of Directors for one year.  The  

Chief  Minister  obliged  him  by  extending  the  term  for  six  months  and  

endorsed the same to the Minister (Cooperation).  The then Chief Minister  

resigned  on  13.8.1983.   Thereafter,  the  Registrar  reconstituted  the  first  

Board  of  Directors  in  terms  of  the  direction  given  by  the  Minister  for  

Industries.  This Court prefaced consideration of the question of interference  

by the Chief  Minister  with the statutory functions of  the Registrar  under  

Bye-law 29 by making the following observations:

“The case illustrates an unfortunate trend which has become too  common these days in the governance of the country.”

The Court then referred to the relevant statutory provisions and observed:

“We  fail  to  appreciate  the  propriety  of  the  Chief  Minister  passing  orders  for  extending  the  term  of  the  first  board  of  directors. Under the Cabinet system of Government the Chief  Minister occupies a position of pre-eminence and he virtually  carries on the governance of the State. The Chief Minister may  call for any information which is available to the Minister-in- charge of any department and may issue necessary directions  

33

for  carrying  on  the  general  administration  of  the  State  Government.  Presumably,  the  Chief  Minister  dealt  with  the  question  as  if  it  were  an  executive  function  of  the  State  Government  and  thereby  clearly  exceeded  his  powers  in  usurping the statutory functions of the Registrar under Bye-Law  29 in extending the term of the first  board of directors  from  time to time. The executive power of the State vested in the  Governor  under  Article  154(1)  connotes  the  residual  or  governmental  functions  that  remain  after  the  legislative  and  judicial functions are taken away. The executive power includes  acts necessary for the carrying on or supervision of the general  administration  of  the  State  including  both  a  decision  as  to  action  and  the  carrying  out  of  the  decision.  Some  of  the  functions  exercised  under  “executive  powers”  may  include  powers  such  as  the  supervisory  jurisdiction  of  the  State  Government  under  Section  65-A  of  the  Act.  The  Executive  cannot, however, go against the provisions of the Constitution  or of any law.

Neither the Chief Minister nor the Minister for Co-operation or  Industries  had  the  power  to  arrogate  to  himself  the  statutory  functions of the Registrar under Bye-Law 29. The act of the  then Chief Minister in extending the term of the committee of  management from time to time was not within his power. Such  action was violative of the provisions of the Rules and the bye- laws framed thereunder. The Act as amended from time to time  was  enacted  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  co-operative  societies  broad-based and democratizing the institution rather  than to allow them to be monopolized by a few persons. The  action  of  the  Chief  Minister  meant  the  very  negation  of  the  beneficial measures contemplated by the Act.

In Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar (1984) 4 SCC 609, this Court  

referred to an earlier decision in  Suman Gupta v. State of J. & K. AIR  

1983 SC 1235, wherein the Court had observed that there is nothing like  

34

unfettered discretion of the executive authority to nominate the candidate for  

admission to medical course under the reciprocal arrangement and  observed  

that recommendations made at the instance of the Chief Minister de hors the  

merit of the candidates who had applied for admission was blatant abuse of  

power by the Chief Minister.

In Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1  

SCC 227,  the  question  considered  by  this  Court  was  whether  the  marks  

awarded to the daughter of the appellant, who was at the relevant time the  

Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra had been changed at his instance  

or to please him.  The respondent had challenged the result of the appellant’s  

daughter of MD examination by alleging that his daughter was shown favour  

by increasing her  marks.   The learned Single  Judge,  after  examining the  

record produced before him, came to the conclusion that tampering of the  

grade-sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of respondent Nos.3 and  

4.  The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the prayer for permission  

to adduce additional evidence and dismissed the appeal with an observation  

that  the  conclusion  arrived  at  against  the  appellant  should  be  treated  as  

merely in the nature of an adverse comment and not a finding of fact.  This  

Court extensively considered the matter, referred to some of the precedents  

and observed:

35

“There is no question in this case of giving any clean chit to the  appellant in the first appeal before us. It leaves a great deal of  suspicion that tampering was done to please Shri Patil or at his  behest. It is true that there is no direct evidence. It is also true  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  link  him  up  with  tampering.  Tampering is established. The relationship is established. The  reluctance to face a public enquiry is also apparent. Apparently  Shri Patil, though holding a public office does not believe that  “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”. The erstwhile Chief  Minister  in  respect  of  his  conduct  did  not  wish  or  invite  an  enquiry  to  be  conducted  by  a  body  nominated  by  the  Chief  Justice of the High Court.  The facts disclose a sorry state of  affairs. Attempt was made to pass the daughter of the erstwhile  Chief Minister, who had failed thrice before, by tampering the  record.  The  person  who  did  it  was  an  employee  of  the  Corporation.  It  speaks  of  a  sorry  state  of  affairs  and though  there is no distinction between comment and a finding and there  is  no  legal  basis  for  such  a  comment,  we  substitute  the  observations made by the aforesaid observations as herein.

This  Court  cannot  be  oblivious  that  there  has  been a  steady  decline of public standards or public morals and public morale.  It is necessary to cleanse public life in this country along with  or even before cleaning the physical atmosphere. The pollution  in our values and standards in (sic is) an equally grave menace  as the pollution of the environment. Where such situations cry  out the courts should not and cannot remain mute and dumb.”

(emphasis supplied)

In Secretary, J.D.A. v. Daulat Mal Jain (1997) 1 SCC 35, this Court  

had the occasion to examine allotment of lands to the respondents by the  

Minister  and  the  committee  headed  by  the  Minister.  Some  of  the  

observations made in that decision are quite relevant in the context of the  

present case. Therefore, they are quoted below:

36

"...  The  Minister  holds  public  office  though  he  gets  constitutional status and performs functions under constitution,  law executive policy. The acts done and duties performed are  public acts or duties as holding of the public office. Therefore,  he  owes  certain  accountability  for  the  acts  done  or  duties  performed.  In a democratic society governed by rule of  law,  power  is  conferred on the  holder  of  the  public  office  or  the  concerned  authority  by  the  Constitution  by  virtue  of  appointment.  The  holder  of  the  office,  therefore,  gets  opportunity to abuse or misuse of the office. The politician who  holds public office must perform public duties with the sense of  purpose,  and  a  sense  of  direction,  under  rules  or  sense  of  priorities.  The purpose must  be genuine in a free democratic  society governed by the rule of law to further socio-economic  democracy. …………… If the Minister, in fact, is responsible  for  all  the  detailed  working  of  his  Department,  then  clearly  ministerial  responsibility  must  cover  a  wider  spectrum  than  mere  moral  responsibility;  for  no  minister  can  possibly  get  acquainted  with;  all  the  detailed  decisions  involved  in  the  working  of  his  Department....  The  so-called  public  policy  cannot  be  a  camouflage  for  abuse  of  the  power  and  trust  entrusted  with  a  public  authority  or  public  servant  for  the  performance  of  public  duties.  Misuse  implies  doing  of  something improper. The essence of impropriety is replacement  of a public motive for a private one. When satisfaction sought  in the performance of duties is  for mutual personal  gain, the  misuse is usually termed as corruption. The holder of a public  office is said to have misused his position when in pursuit of a  private satisfaction, as distinguished from public interest, he has  done something which he ought not  to have done.  The most  elementary qualification demanded of a Minister is honesty and  incorruptibility. He should not only possess these qualifications  but should also appear to possess the same."

(emphasis supplied)

37

In R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968) 1 All. E.R. 763,  

the Court of Appeal considered the question whether the Commissioner of  

Police could give instruction to the cadre not to take action against clubs for  

violating gaming laws and held that he was not entitled to do so.  The facts  

of the case show that Albert Raymond Blackburn applied for a mandamus to  

the Commissioner of Police of Metropolis requiring him to assist him in the  

prosecution of gaming clubs, which contravened the provisions of Betting,  

Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963 and in particular to assist him in respect of  

the complaint lodged on March 21, 1967 in relation to Golden Nugget Club,  

Piccadilly and to reverse or procure the reversal of a policy decision taken  

by him or his superiors that the time of the police officers would not be  

spent on enforcing the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act,  

1963.  The Divisional Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the application.  

The  Court  of  Appeal  noted  that  the  policy  decision  contained  in  

communication dated April 22, 1966 was a confidential instruction issued to  

the senior officers of the metropolitan police whereby they were directed not  

to proceed against  the clubs for breach of gaming laws unless there was  

complaint of cheating or they become haunts of criminals.  As a result of the  

said instruction,  the big  gaming clubs in  the metropolis  were allowed to  

38

carry on their activities without any police interference.  In his opinion, Lord  

Denning M.R.  made the following observations:

“I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is  of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land.  He  must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected;  and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace.  He  must  decide  whether  or  no  suspected  persons  are  to  be  prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it  is  brought;  but  in  all  these  things  he  is  not  the  servant  of  anyone, save of the law itself.  No minister of the Crown can  tell  him that  he must,  or  must  not,  keep observation on this  place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or  that  one.   Nor  can  any  police  authority  tell  him  so.   The  responsibility  for  law  enforcement  lies  on  him.   He  is  answerable to the law and to the law alone.”

(emphasis supplied)

 In Magill v. Porter (2002) 2 AC 357, the House of Lords upheld the  

decision of the District  Auditor who had opined that certain Ministers of  

Westministers City Council had used their powers to increase the number of  

owners/occupiers in marginal wards for the purpose of encouraging them to  

vote for the  Conservative Party in future elections.  The House of Lords  

held that although the powers under which the Council could dispose of the  

land was very broad, and although, elected politicians were entitled to act in  

a manner which would earn the gratitude and support of their electorate, they  

could  act  only  to  pursue  a  “public  purpose  for  which  the  power  was  

39

conferred”,  but  the  purpose  of  securing  electoral  advantage  for  the  

Conservative Party was no such “public purpose”.

8. At this stage, I may also refer to the following portion of the preface  

to  1964  paper  back  edition  of  the  book  titled  “The  Modern  State”  by  

Maciver:

“The  state  has  no  finality,  but  human nature  is  as  stable  as  human needs, and what human beings need from government –  if we think not of the few, but of men generally, men as social  beings – is the same under all conditions.  These are liberties  secured  by  restraints,  justice  under  law,  order  that  provides  opportunity,  the  economy  of  the  good  life.   The  modes  of  satisfying these needs change with the changing conditions.  To  satisfy any need whatever, even the most spiritual, a modicum  of power is necessary, for power is simply the effective control  of means.  From the beginning of human history government  has  been  recognized  as  the  overall  holder  and  regulator  of  power, maintaining order by limiting all  other expressions of  power and thereby turning permitted powers into rights.  In that  concept lay the rudiments of the principles of government.  In  every age men have sought to clarify the application of these  principles  to the  changing times.   In every age the  abuse of  power  by  governments  has  led  to  disasters  and  uprisings,  oppressions  and  vainglorious  wars,  and  sometimes  to  experiments  in  the  control  of  power,  seeking  to  make  it  responsible, or more responsible, subject in some manner to the  will  of  the people,  of  the  majority  or  those who represented  them.”   

9. The facts of this case, as noticed in the judgment prepared by brother  

Justice Ganguly, show that with a view to frustrate the complaint made by  

40

respondent No.1 who alleged that respondent No.2 - Gokulchand Sananda,  

his family members and some other money lenders were harassing him and  

other  farmers  and  also  to  stall  the  action  likely  to  be  initiated  by  the  

concerned police authorities under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.  

Shri  Dilip  Kumar  Sananda,  a  member  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  

approached the Chief Minister for a special treatment.  In the first place, the  

Principal  Secretary of  the Chief  Minister  made enquiries  from the police  

station about the cases registered against  Sananda.   Thereafter,  the Chief  

Minister, without verifying the truthfulness or otherwise of the assertion of  

Shri Dilip Kumar Sananda that false complaints were being lodged against  

his family members, issued instructions that complaint against the concerned  

M.L.A. and his family members should be first placed before the District  

Anti-Money Lending Committee, which should obtain legal opinion of the  

District Government Pleader and then only take decision on the same and  

take appropriate  legal  action.  The camouflage of sophistry used by Shri  

Vilas Rao Deshmukh in the instructions given by him and the affidavit filed  

before this Court is clearly misleading.  The message to the authorities was  

loud and clear  i.e.  they were  not  to take the complaints  against  Sananda  

family seriously and not to proceed against them.  The District Magistrate,  

the District Superintendent of Police and officers subordinate to them were  

41

bound  to  comply  with  the  same  in  their  letter  and  spirit.   They  could  

disregard  those  instructions  at  their  own  peril  and  none  of  them  was  

expected  to  do  so.  The  District  Anti-Money  Lending  Committee  was  

constituted  by  the  Government  of  Maharashtra  vide  resolution  No.  

MLA.1204/CR/280/C/7/S  dated  19th October,  2009  for  protecting  the  

farmers  against  unscrupulous  money  lenders  and  not  for  protecting  the  

wrong doers,  but  in  total  disregard  of  the  scheme of  the  Act,  the  Chief  

Minister gave instructions which had the effect of frustrating the object of  

the legislation enacted for protection of the farmers.  The instructions given  

by the Chief Minister to District  Collector, Buldhana were  ex facie ultra  

vires the provisions of the Act which do not envisage any role of the Chief  

Minister  in  cases  involving  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  and  

amounted to an unwanted interference with the functioning of the authorities  

entrusted  with  the  task  of  enforcing  the  Act  enacted  for  regulating,  

controlling  transactions  of  money  lending  and  protecting  unsuspecting  

borrowers against oppression and harassment at the hands of unscrupulous  

money lenders.

……………………….J. (G.S. Singhvi)

New Delhi, December 14, 2010

42